San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 21, 2014

Centura Health Will Not Hire Women, Blacks, Gays Or The Obese

Centura Health, a non-profit corporation that operates 15 hospitals in Colorado, announced yesterday that effective January 1st they will no longer be hiring women.   Company spokesman Aristotle Mencken defended the new policy as necessary to maintain high standards of patient care.  "All people know women tend to get hysterical and faint during times of high stress.  Well, a hospital is filled with lots of high stress situations and we just can't have these emotional loose cannons running around our hospitals when sick people need to be tended to."  In addition Mr. Mencken described how company costs will be lowered since the hospitals will no longer be required, under the provisions of the Amerikans with Disabilities Act, to provide fainting beds in all women's offices.  Although the announcement was met with raucous applause by the males in attendance, various feminist groups shrilly announced their intention to "sue Centura Health into oblivion." 
Do you believe me?  You shouldn't.  What I just wrote is not true.  But this is...
Centura Health, a non-profit corporation that operates 15 hospitals in Colorado, announced yesterday that effective January 1st they will no longer be hiring blacks.  Company spokesman Andrew Jackson defended the new policy as absolutely necessary to "send a message to racial minorities who think they can get a job with Centura just because of their skin color."  Jackson explained that to maintain the highest standards of patient care it became necessary to stop hiring blacks "who believe they have a right to a job with the hospital just because they are qualified for one."  Two racists in the back of the room where the announcement was made said, "It is about time," but other black people in attendance threatened to sue Centura Health if they do not immediately set a quota system that will allow them to create a workforce that is 25% black.  When asked why the workforce had to be 25% black rather than the 12.5% ratio that blacks represent in Colorado a spokeswoman for the group said, "Duh! Slavery."
Do you believe me?  You shouldn't.  What I wrote is not true.  But this is...
Centura Health, a non-profit corporation that operates 15 hospitals in Colorado, announced yesterday that effective January 1st they will no longer be hiring gays.  Company spokesman Homer Phobic defended the new policy as absolutely essential for quality patient care and establishing a medically safe workplace environment.  Phobic was quoted as saying, "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome has become the elephant in the room in our society.  Everyone knows that it is there but nobody is willing to do anything about.  Well we are."  Phobic went on to explain that AIDS is highly contagious and that the federal government has been covering up the truth that it can be spread by casual contact.  A spokesperson/spokeswoman/spokesneut/spokesit/spokeshermaphrodite for the LGBTQ community immediately declared that multiple lawsuits would be filed on behalf of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, the transgendered and queers everywhere.  As the meeting broke up a chant could be heard coming from the employee cafeteria adjacent to the meeting room saying, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."
Do you believe me?  You shouldn't.  What I wrote is not true.  But this is...
Centura Health, a non-profit corporation that operates 15 hospitals in Colorado, announced yesterday that effective January 1st they will no longer be hiring the morbidly obese.  Company spokeswoman Jenny Craig defended the new policy as in the best interest of "fatties everywhere."  Craig explained that "Fat people have no discipline at all.  As a result, we have to force them to be disciplined by giving them severe incentives for proper behavior.  From now on if you like Twinkies you can find someplace else to park your fat bum."  Craig went on to cite a study from the McKinsey Global Institute showing that obesity now kills as many people as smoking and, just like smoking, all of those deaths are preventable.  Citing the portion of the study that said obesity reduces global GDP by 2.8%, Craig stated,  "that 2.8% cost savings is a lot of money for Centura.  Plus we think we can save even more money because we won't be buying any more donuts."   A representative of Over Eaters Anonymous was present at the meeting.  He announced that a lawsuit would be filed against Centura, right after lunch.
Do you believe me?  You shouldn't.  What I wrote is not true, except the part about the obesity report from McKinsey Global Institute.  In the SDA obesity is responsible for more "preventable deaths" than smoking.  But this, really, what follows is true.
Centura Health, a non-profit corporation that operates 15 hospitals in Colorado, announced yesterday that effective January 1st they will no longer be hiring smokers.  Centura representatives described the new policy as an improvement upon the existing policy that prohibits smoking on any of its properties.  Company spokeswoman Wendi Dammann said, "We wholeheartedly believe this is the right thing to do for our is important that we serve as a role model for our communities by promoting the benefits of health and wellness."  She went on to justify the new policy by saying that, "smoking is the leading cause of preventable death each year."  Why being a role model is so important was not detailed. How a non-profit corporation could serve as a "role model", whatever that is, was not explained.   Why smokers would no longer be hired but the morbidly obese (who  make up a significant minority percentage of Centura's current workforce)  would still be hired was not described.  Why, if smoking is so bad, existing employees who smoke will  not be terminated on January 1st was not explained.  Why it is the business of Centura Health to meddle in the legal and moral behaviors of their employees was not elucidated.  The new policy was met with cheers and congratulations by all media outlets.  A talking head on the television was gushing with praise for the new policy as she read her teleprompter announcing it.  Everyone, it seems, thinks it is good thing to discriminate against smokers.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act makes it illegal to discriminate when hiring based upon race, ethnicity, skin color, religious beliefs, gender, sexual intercourse preferences, national origin, age and, most bizarrely, an individual's personal genome.  In other words, it is illegal to refuse to hire any group of people that is politically protected and all groups of people are politically protected.  Well, almost all groups are protected.  If you are a racist you have to hire blacks.  If you are Welsh you have to hire the Irish.  If you are Christian you have to hire homosexual warlocks and lesbian Wiccans.  If you are young you have to hire geriatrics.  And if you happen to know the genetic constitution of a potential employee you have to hire him even though you are aware he is going to contract ALS at some point in the future.  But if you are a smoker nobody has to hire you.
Centura Health specifically stated that the EOE act does not protect smokers.  Wendi also went on to declare that she believes the announcement will be received favorably because, like Centura, the public hates smokers.  Well at least she got that right.  The public does hate smokers.  Smokers are the pariah class in the SDA.  Smokers represent a political minority so they cannot protect themselves from the depredations of the non-smokers.  Yell at them, banish them to frozen windswept smoking zones, ban their practice in public, hide them from your children, talk about them behind their backs and give them all dirty looks when they light up in their automobiles.  You can do anything you want to a smoker with absolute impunity.  And Centura Health is leading the charge.  Hypocrites, all of them.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Two Simple Solutions To The Immigration Problem

The Conservatives are going crazy and the Liberals are warning about possible rioting in the streets.  What is all the furor about?  King Obama is about to make a unilateral proclamation declaring that anywhere from three to five million people who have been living in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika for the past several years illegally are free to stay.  Conservatives see this as little more than a ploy to swell the ranks of voters who will register as Democrats.  Liberals see this as another wonderful opportunity to display compassion for the poor and downtrodden in the world.  As is usually the case, both the Conservatives and the Liberals are fully committed to a statist solution to the alleged problem.  As is always the case, both groups refuse to consider a solution to the problem that would allow men to live together in freedom without infringing upon one another's rights.  So, please allow me to propose two simple solutions to what is called the immigration problem.
The Civil War, or war of Northern Aggression, ended in 1865.  Shortly after the end of hostilities the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed.  It prohibited slavery.  A year later the 14th Amendment was proposed.  The 14th Amendment, among other things, declares that anyone born on SDA soil is automatically an SDA citizen.  Although many reasons were given for why the 14th Amendment needed to be ratified, they all basically boiled down to the same thing.  The north wanted to punish the south for slavery.  Lots of moral outrage needed to be expressed.  In addition, the north wanted to make sure that the south would remain perpetually economically inferior.  To accomplish those goals the north decided to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which would grant immediate citizenship to all of the black slaves living in the south.  Northerners knew that granting immediate citizenship to black slaves and their future offspring would create enormous socio/economic problems for the south.  And they were right.
Fast forward to today.  Any citizen of Latin America who can cross the US/Mexico border and give birth on US soil knows that her child will be a US citizen by law.  It does not matter how the woman gets here.  All that matters is that the child hits US soil when it is born.  It does not take a genius to realize that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, for all of its problems, is an economically superior place to raise a child when compared to any Latin American country.  That is why three to five million Latin American citizens are living in the SDA illegally today.  It therefore necessarily follows that it does not take a genius to realize that a pregnant woman who wants to give her child the best opportunity for economic advancement will cross the border to give birth.  Couple that fact with the fact that once the child grows up he can sponsor the citizenship of his parents and you have a win-win situation for all involved.
Simple solution number one is this:  repeal the 14th Amendment.  There is no reason, outside of historical momentum from common law tradition, why a person should be deemed a citizen of the land in which he is born.  It makes far more sense to consider a child to be a citizen of the same country that his parents are citizens of.  Eliminate the citizenship by birth motivation and a good part of the immigration problem goes away.
No doubt we all realize that the main reason most people believe the SDA has millions of illegal aliens living in it is due to the fact that social services are required by law to be administered to all people, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or citizenship.  A pregnant Mexican woman can cross the border and walk into a SDA hospital and the hospital is required by law to take care of her.  Nobody may be turned aside and denied medical care.  In the same way, or at least I am told by Conservatives that this is true, any illegal alien can walk into any welfare office and sign up for welfare benefits.  The popular image, whether it is accurate or not, is that illegal aliens come to the SDA in order to sign up for welfare benefits.  Once here they settle down and remain on the government dole for the rest of their lives.  Now I don't see why everyone raises such a fuss about that state of affairs, if it is indeed true. It seems to me that getting on welfare and living an entire life on the government dole is a cherished SDA tradition.  Millions of legal citizens do it.  What is the fuss?
The second solution to the immigration problem is very simple, and thrifty as well.  Abolish all social welfare programs immediately.  Yes, you read that correctly, abolish all social welfare programs.  This is the alternative that neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to discuss.  All career politicians have too much to gain by maintaining the current social welfare system so the last thing they will ever propose is the complete abolition of it.  All career politicians realize that the abolition of all social welfare programs will anger the legal citizens who have made a living on the government dole.  They also realize that doing so will cost them their jobs as career politicians.  So that will never happen.  What we get in its place is an endless debate about various ways to solve the immigration problem that will never address the real issues of citizenship and social welfare.
You may have guessed that I do not buy the arguments of either the Republicans or the Democrats.  I do not believe that the main reason Latin American citizens come to the SDA is to give birth to baby citizens or utilize our massive wealth transfer programs.  I have known too many of these fellows to believe that about them.  The reason the vast majority of Latin Americans come to the SDA is to work.  They work hard and they send their money home.  They can make more in a couple of months in the SDA than they can make in an entire year in their home countries.  And that is why I will now propose a completely new solution to the immigration problem.  My solution ignores all of the arguments of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The final solution to the immigration problem is to eliminate all barriers to entry for anyone who wants to come to the SDA.  Unlimited immigration and open borders will solve every single problem, and be less expensive as well.  It will also put a lot of government bureaucrats and career politicians out of business and that is why it will never happen. 
Labor is a commodity and just like any other commodity it should be freely traded and exchanged across geo-political borders.  The more freedom there is in the exchange process, the more everyone benefits.  Barriers to free exchange of labor only hinder economic growth and harm both parties to the transaction.  More workers means more production.  More production means the GDP of the SDA rises.  These are all good things that no rational person should oppose.  The only group that benefits from the creation of labor trading barriers is government.  And that is precisely why we will never see free and open borders.  Government in general, and the SDA government in particular, despise freedom.
I can already hear the howls of protest against my proposal for open borders.  Open borders, you say, will allow an influx of terrorists who will tear the SDA apart. For those who hold that position I have only one question to ask.  Fox News reports that something between three and five million people have crossed the border illegally under King Obama's watch.  Let's be conservative and take the three million figure as accurate.  How many of those three million people have committed an act of domestic terrorism since arriving in the SDA?  Okay, another question.  How many of those people have been suicide bombers who blew themselves up in crowded venues?  Okay, one more question.  How many of those people have blown up a building?  You know the answer as well as I do.  None.  Zero.  Nunca.  Please, don't try and tell me that open borders will result in a massive influx of domestic terrorists.  It just ain't happening.  

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Political Economics 101

There is an amazing ignorance of economic principles when it comes to those who are politically involved.  People who vote, in particular, seem to be totally ignorant of economics.  I do not know if that ignorance is willing or unwilling.  I suspect most people who vote make the rational decision to be ignorant of economic reality in order to avoid having a problem with their consciences.  If they allow themselves to really think about what they are doing when they vote they would find it difficult to sleep at night.  I believe most people know, deep down, that majority rule is just another phrase for theft from my neighbor but they do everything they can to suppress that truth.  Let's consider that for a moment today.
The Constitution of the United States of America delineates only three civil rights.  Those three rights are the right to your life, the right to your property and the right to your freedom.  Any astute observer of political philosophy can immediately recognize that the exercising of those three rights does not involve taking anything from my neighbor.  My life is preserved without taking my neighbor's life.  My property is retained without stealing any of my neighbor's property.  My freedom exists without making my neighbor less free.  There is a reason why the Constitution recognizes only these three civil rights.  Enforcing these three God-given rights does not involve taking anything from my neighbor.  As long as people who vote do nothing more than ask their representatives to enforce these three rights we have no problems.  Sadly, that time ended a long time ago.
People who vote today do not vote to protect the life, property and freedom of their neighbors.  In fact, people who vote today do the exact opposite of what the Constitution intended.  Today's voter looks around for a career politician who will promise him the most free stuff and then makes the entirely rational, yet immoral, decision to vote for that person.  Today's voter is fully aware that if he can become a part of a voting majority he will be able to get all the free stuff he wants simply by electing the career politician who promises to enact legislation to make the wealth transfer he desires.  Politicians, and the immoral people who vote for them, are quite brazen in their approach to the task of wealth transfer.  They have no problem admitting that they are going to take money from one group and give it to themselves.  They have highly effective propaganda machines that churn out misinformation about the group they desire to fleece in order to justify their theft.  And they do everything they can to believe the lies they are telling.
There is a very simple economic principle that should guide every political decision that is made.  That principle is that any granting of a civil right to a person or group that goes beyond the established civil rights of  life, liberty and property is going to involve taking the lives, freedom and property of other people first.  In other words, everything that a career politician promises to deliver today must first be stolen from another citizen in this sad land.  Make no mistake, when government delivers on the promises made to the voters the members of various minority groups are about to have their property forcibly taken from them and given to the voters in the majority.  This behavior is called stealing or theft and it is immoral.  That political system is called Democracy and it is the format for political worship in this immoral land.
Voters do everything they can to suppress the fact that they are thieves who are actively robbing the political minorities around them.  When floods and forest fires ravaged parts of Colorado last year the career politicians in this state were quick to go to those who suffered financial harm and promise them federal tax dollars.  Those who had suffered financial harm, either by stupidly not having insurance or equally stupidly building homes in a flood plain, made the conscious decision to not ask where the money was coming from.  Or, more accurately, they told themselves that they were getting "federal money," whatever that means.
The concept of federal money is the number one mechanism used by greedy, envy filled voters who believe they have a right to their neighbor's cash for some reason or another.  Everyone pretends that federal money is not first extracted from taxpayers in the top 49% of the income population around the country.  Everyone pretends that federal money just magically appears in the federal budget each year, just waiting to be spent on noble and worthy causes like supporting stupid and irresponsible people who also happen to vote.  Even the esteemed Ron Paul, who voted against every unconstitutional spending bill that came across his desk, made it a practice to vote for every spending bill that would bring federal tax dollars to his home state of Texas.  He justified that act of theft by declaring that he had to represent his constituents.  I guess he decided that since the money was going to be stolen and distributed to voters whether he agreed to his fair share of the booty or not, he might as well lobby for his fair share of the booty.  That, my friends, is how the game is played.
Money does not grow on trees despite the fact all people who vote pretend that it does.  Money is taken by force from a politically unprotected minority before it is given to you and your worthy cause.  You need to face up to that fact.  You need to stop pretending that this process is for the greater good.  You need to stop lying to yourself about where the cash is coming from.  You need to stop speaking in collectivist terms like "society" and recognize that every penny you and your group gets from the government has first been taken, by force and under penalty of law for noncompliance, from an innocent victim of your second-hand theft.  You need to stop classifying yourself as a victim and worthy of reparations.  You also need to stop classifying the object of your theft as immoral simply because he has more money than you do.  You need to come face to face with your true moral guilt and admit that you are a thief.
There are many things wrong with the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today.  At the heart of all of those wrongs is the sin of envy.  Envy is on dramatic display every election cycle as patriotic Amerikans do their most holy duty of voting for the candidate who has promised them the most of their neighbor's property.  Until this behavior changes, and I do not believe it ever will, the SDA is doomed.  Eventually the golden goose is plucked for the last time and the entire house of cards comes crashing down.  I don't think that will be such a bad day.  In fact, I welcome that day.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

PTSD Is Caused By Basic Training

People complain that I am way too harsh with military personnel when I accuse them of being murderers.  Well, actually, that is not true.  Almost no one reads this blog and the handful of people who do rarely post any comments about what I have written.  So, in actuality, I have never received a complaint about my assertion that military personnel who are engaged in an immoral war are guilty of the sin of murder.  But I know other people who believe the same thing I do and they, being far more popular and better writers than I am, receive hate-filled comments all the time.  So today, for a brief moment, I am going to classify myself with my superior compatriots and pretend that people actually believe I am wrong on this matter. 
My purpose today is not to once again accuse the Socialist Democracy of Amerika of pursuing imperialistic wars of aggression around the world.  My purpose is not to accuse the members of the military that are fighting those imperialistic wars of the sin of murder, although I believed they are guilty of it.  My purpose is to try and understand how a normal SDA citizen could be turned into a murderous thug intent upon killing for the expansionary vision of his country.  How do kids who have just graduated from high school turn into killing machines, glorying in mayhem, death and destruction of property in the name of patriotic service to the SDA?
I believe that most of the citizens of the SDA, if they could set aside their patriotic feelings for the SDA military for just a moment, would be able to realize that they are constantly being subjected to a steady stream of statist propaganda designed to convince them that every other sovereign nation in the world is a potential enemy of the SDA.  Most folks, if they take a moment to think about it, would come to see that there is no foreign nation on the surface of the earth today that poses a legitimate threat to the absolute hegemonic power of the SDA.  I also believe most rational citizens of this sad land would actually be able to understand the argument that some wars are unjust if they are not prosecuted in defense of the SDA homeland.  I also believe that some folks might actually come to see that all the wars that have been prosecuted overseas, at least during my lifetime, have been unjust because they have been wars of aggression rather than wars of self protection and national defense.  Indeed, I think the great majority of those citizens who joined the military and then went overseas to kill the enemy eventually come to their senses and realize that what they have done is wrong. How do I know this?  Because of PTSD.
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, or PTSD, is simply psycho-babble for feeling bad about what you have done or feeling bad about what you saw being done and did nothing to prevent or stop.  People never experience PTSD when they have done something they believe is morally proper.  Nobody who subdued a bank robber or a murderer is ever described as having PTSD.  People do not experience PTSD when they have done something truly heroic.  People do not experience PTSD when they have really saved the lives of others, or protected the property of others, or engaged in any other good deed towards and for the benefit of others.  PTSD is always the end result of having engaged in immoral behavior and then, later, coming to one's senses and feeling remorse for what was done. 
SDA military personnel suffer from PTSD on a grand scale.  That tells me one thing.  It tells me that SDA military personnel know what they are doing is wrong.  But it does not tell me why they did what they did in the first place.  To answer that question we have to consider the military practice known as basic training.
I believe everyone reading this blog post is familiar with the term basic training so I will not bother to define it.  Basic training is the process by which new members of the SDA military apparatus are brainwashed into automatons who will immediately obey every immoral order without regard to considerations of moral propriety or the dictates of their own consciences.  Basic training has only one make the recruit suppress his own conscience so he will immediately obey the order to kill the enemy, whether doing so is right or wrong.  We all know the argument in favor of basic training.  We are told that commanders cannot afford the luxury of allowing their underlings a conscience.  If the underlings have a conscience they would be prone to question the moral propriety of an order to kill another human being.  Or, perhaps, the underling might question the moral propriety of sacrificing his own life in an attempt to kill another human being.  Regardless of the specific situation, the commander needs to know that his orders will be immediately followed without question, regardless of their moral propriety.  If orders are not immediately obeyed, we are informed, battlefield discipline would dissolve and every military engagement would fail as each individual solider sat around contemplating the moral propriety of his actions.  In order to ensure that independent thought never takes place, the recruit is subjected to a brutal and rigorous program of basic training that, once completed, ensures he will never have an independent thought again, or at least until he is discharged.  Then those independent thoughts come roaring back in and PTSD rears its head.
Basic training is immoral.  No person, no country, no government, no branch of the armed forces and no drill instructor has the right to override the conscience of any individual human being.  Any attempt to do so is a violent assault upon the moral compass every individual is born with and is patently  immoral.  Each person must evaluate the moral propriety of each of his actions, especially when he is being asked to kill someone in the name of his government.  The old argument, "I was only following orders," only works because the process of basic training has created an automated killing machine with no moral conscience whatsoever.  Every member of the military should have the right to question the moral propriety of an order to kill another human being and he should also have the right to disobey that order if he determines that the killing is not justified.  Will that result in disorder on the battlefield?  Maybe it will.  And guess what?  If the war is an immoral war then having disorder on the battlefield is a very good thing.  It will prevent innocents from being murdered. 
We have legions of military personnel returning to the SDA with PTSD.  Although I believe they have committed murder, or at least accessory to murder, I also have a great amount of compassion for them.  They were all brainwashed and sent to foreign lands to kill for the imperialistic government of the SDA.  In many ways they are not responsible for their actions.  In fact, I can be persuaded that the only action they are guilty of was the the initial decision to subject themselves to the process of brainwashing in order to enable them to kill others.  And that is why I conclude that you should never join the armed services.  Even if the SDA stumbles into a war that is morally proper you should refuse to join the armed services until the process of basic training is eradicated.  That is why I also conclude that you should never allow your children to join the armed services.  Military service, and the basic training that initiates it, needs to be exposed for what it intimidating process of brainwashing and mind control designed to get individual citizens to kill in the name of the government without regard to the propriety of that killing.  That is why I conclude that nobody should ever willingly go through the process of basic training.  If you do not want to end up a hollow shell of a human being suffering from the ravages of PTSD, avoid military service and basic training at all costs.

Monday, November 17, 2014

The Worker's Compensation Con

I was in a place of business this past weekend when my eyes were drawn to a sign written in Spanish.  As a Welshman I know what it is like to suffer language discrimination so I make it a routine practice to try and read, with comprehension, all signage that is written in Spanish.  Solidarity with all linguistic minorities is my motto.  I would write that last sentence out in Welsh but I am sure you would not understand it as it would mostly be Cs, Ws and Ls.  As I was working my way through the words on this sign I came to realize that it was about the Worker's Compensation law and how it applied to this particular place of business.  Now this was not the first time I have read a sign announcing that Workers's Compensation law applies to a business.  But there was something on this particular sign that was new to me.  So new, in fact, that I quickly shifted my eyes to the English version of the sign so I could be sure that I was reading it properly.  What I read shocked and angered me.
I suspect we are all familiar with the basic provisions of Worker's Compensation law.  The fundamental presupposition underlying all Worker's Compensation law is that the employer is responsible for the health and well being of his employees.  Whenever the health and well being of an employee is endangered by something that takes place on the job it is automatically deemed to be the responsibility of the employer.  In other words, as long as a person is on the job he is never responsible for his own physical well being.  Profit-seeking businesses are exclusively responsible for the physical well being of all employees at all times they are on the job.  Now, does anyone besides me see a perverse incentive being established here?
Surprise!  Worker's Compensation is rife with fraud.  You can tell that assertion is true by the number of legal firms that come up when you do a simple Google search of the terms "Worker's Compensation."  Try it and see for yourself.  Dozens of ambulance chasing legal firms that make their collective living suing reputable and honorable profit-seeking businesses will magically appear the moment it is possible to scam the system and steal from the hard working business community.  Worker's Compensation law is clear.  If a person is on the job site and he steps on a rake which comes up and hits him in the face, knocking out his front teeth, the employer is responsible to pay for the damages.  In addition, if the idiot who stepped on the rake hires an attorney, the attorney will argue in court that the profit-seeking company should have known that a rake lying on the ground has a propensity to jump up when stepped on and strike people in the face.  Knowing that truth in advance means the employer is not only responsible for the injury but he is also deemed to be guilty of negligence and subject to a huge civil fine. 
We all know how these things work out in the real world.  In the above case, after the attorney forces the employer to pay the dental bill of the employee and after the attorney has exacted a couple of million bucks for negligence on the part of the employer he will file another suit claiming permanent disability.  Under the Worker's Compensation rules the employer is responsible for the permanent disability of the employee who stupidly stepped on the rake.  The employee will appear in court wearing a neck brace and claiming permanent unspecified neck and back pain which, he alleges, has ruined his quality of life and made him permanently unable to ever work again.  A sympathetic jury will award a lifetime settlement of millions of dollars, all paid for by the honest profit-seeking employer.  Of course we all know how this story ends.  The permanently disabled employee will be seen later that summer riding a jet-ski at the local reservoir.  He will also be driving a fancy new pick-up truck. He may also be sporting a new trophy bride.
Worker' Compensation laws are nothing more than legalized theft.  There is no moral or legal reason why an employer should be held responsible for an injury suffered by an employee simply because the employee is on the job.  The assumption that all injuries are the fault of the employer is absurd and immoral.  The net result of this scam is that immoral people and their immoral attorneys are enriched at the expense of honest hard working businessmen.  In addition, since businesses have to cover the cost of doing business, it is ultimately the consumer who will pay for the entire scam by means of higher prices for the goods and services that are being provided by the business.  The immoral members of society win and those of us who mind our own business and seek to live morally lose. 
I mentioned that I saw something on the sign in the place of business I was visiting last Saturday.  I didn't tell you what it said.  I had never seen this particular sentence on a Worker's Compensation sign before.  There, right before my eyes, in Spanish and in English, was the sentence telling the employee that if his injury was a result of the fact that he was stone, cold drunk at the time he was injured, he would only receive half the usual amount of money from his employer!  Can you believe it? An employee can walk into his job site falling down drunk and proceed to fall down on a screwdriver.  When he staggers to his feet and discovers there is a screwdriver sticking out of his gut he can sue his employer for his injury.  However, since he was drunk at the time he impaled himself, he can only expect half the usual amount of money.  I wonder if that applies to the amount he will be awarded in the lawsuit his attorney brings alleging the presence of an unsafe work environment?   Has the entire world gone mad?